IntelliBriefs bring you Intelligence briefs on Geopolitics , Security and Intelligence from around the world . We gather information and insights from multiple sources and present you in a digestible format to quench your thirst for right perspective, with right information at right time at right place . We encourage people to contact us with any relevant information that other news media organizations don't cover . Contact :intellibriefs@gmail.com

October 10, 2011

(With very little knowledge I have, I have tried to analyse why FIR against Dr. Subramaniun Swamy is bad in law. Rest depands upon the courts. Let me also clarify that views expressed here are of Dr. Swamy and not mine though I have tried to analyse them purely on law.)

When I got to know about the FIR being registered against Dr. Subramaniun Swamy, the first thing I thought was are we living in India? A country which is known for its tolerent attitude towards diversity of views!

In a country where likes of Arundhati Roy can have their opinion that Kashmir should be freed from India but if someone speaks about the facts, truth, history and someone, who is a crusader against corruption, should be prosecuted for writing a so called inflammatory article?

Please dont consider me a great supporter of what Dr. Swamy wrote, rather I have a difference of opinion on many points which Dr. Swamy wrote. Still is he not entitled to have a point of view in his own country which is supposed to be the biggest democracy of this world?

Point of law

Yes! Section 153 A of IPC does provide for a jail term of three years for spreading hatred among different communities.

[I am writing the text of section 153A(a) for the sake of convenience

Section 153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—

(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth,residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both]

After reading the section, I ask myself 1. What disharmony has this article created when no untoward incident happened from 16th July to 3rd October the day when the FIR has been registered?

2. Where is it written in Section 153A that a person can not appeal to Hindus to come and unite against the biggest challenge of world that is Islamic Terrorism. When he writes about Islamic terrorism, he doesn't say that every Muslim is a terrorist. Even Muslims died in 9/11 attacks.

3. Where is it written in Section 153A that one can not appeal to Muslim brothers who are equal sufferers of terrorism to join Hindus in their fight against terrorism? Is agony of a Muslim mother less than that of a Hindu mother when both have lost their sons in a bomb blast?

4. Where is it written in Section 153A that a person can not speak the truth? This is a historical fact that the ancestors of Muslims were Hindus! What is wrong in asking people to accept that? Even most of the Punjabi Muslims in Pakistan were Hindus. Muslims in Kashmir were Hindus. This a fact and will always remain so and there is nothing culpable in speaking a historical fact.

5. What prevents in Section 153A when Dr. Swamy asks for implementing Uniform Civil Code? Our Consitution says that state should ensure that India should have Uniform Civil Code (Article 44). And as far as singing Vande Matram is concerned, its the duty of every Indian to sing that.

6. Where does section 153A state that Hindus can't welcome people who are wanting to reconvert to Hinduism? In India one can see people bracing Islam or Christianity, but is it a sin to welcome those who want to come back home? Which law prevents that? Which law says that we, the Indians should not prevent Bangladeshis settling in India?

People advocating criminal action against Dr Swamy might argue that is it right to ask for removal of the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites? I understand their point of view. But just to have a wish to have temples instead of masjids doesn't make a person criminally liable! Tomorrow someone may have a laughable wish to have a Church in Macca, should anyone pay much attention to it?

Conclusion

In a democratic country like India, everyone has a right to have his opinion. Hindus and Muslims should not play in the hands of few politicians. Both the communities must understand that appeasement of one community shall lead to anger in other community. We are Indians and should come together like Indian. The FIR against Dr. Swamy is typically is case of political motivation. Some people also allege that the FIR had been filed by a person who is fighting for his own political survival and we must know that.

No comments:

Modi: post-Nehruvian Foreign Policy

Narendra Modi is the first Indian Prime Minister to pursue a post-Nehruvian Foreign Policy with a clean break from the past. Keep up with Narendra Modi’s ever evolving Foreign Policy moves on Niti Central as he prepares to visit the United States.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions or strategies of IntelliBriefs or any employee thereof. IntelliBriefs make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this blog and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.

IntelliBriefs blog reserves the right to delete, edit, or alter in any manner it sees fit blog entries or comments that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be obscene, offensive, defamatory, threatening, in violation of trademark, copyright or other laws, or is otherwise unacceptable